• dead [he/him]
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Tucker asks the question. "Why does the US fear a strong Russia by not a strong China?" Putin says that in 1991 Russia expected to be welcomed into "the brotherhood of civilized nations". Then Putin talks about NATO expansion. Putin says that the US lied because they had promised not to expand eastward after 1991. Then he said that there were 5 waves of NATO expansion after 1991. Putin says that at each wave of expansion, Russia tried to persuade NATO to stop expanding by saying that Russia is a "bourgeois" country with a "free market" and "no communist party with power".

      The first NATO expansion after 1991 was in March 1999, then again in 2004, 2009, 2017, 2020, 2023, and 2024. It is my understanding that Putin was referring to the period from 1999 to present day.

    • Tunnelvision [they/them]
      ·
      5 months ago

      Maybe maybe not, but it’s as true today as it was in the 90’s so that distinction doesn’t really matter.

      • ikilledtheradiostar [comrade/them, love/loves]
        ·
        5 months ago

        I thought Putin was popular because of his resistance to the shock doctrine. Russia doesn't seem imperial and has a ton of productive capacity. With that many prols and the their history with the USSR certainly they're not actually as bourgeois as the us now. Do you have any information? Most I've read is Kathleen Tyson and she describes it as some sort of proto China.

        • Tunnelvision [they/them]
          ·
          5 months ago

          He absolutely was and no I don’t believe Russia is imperial, but it is on the same spectrum as the United States still. I explain this more in a different comment below if you want to see my reasoning.

          • ikilledtheradiostar [comrade/them, love/loves]
            ·
            5 months ago

            I read it and once again I don't have a great understanding of how Russia is organized and would love some good sources.

            Regarding the new deal. It would only be a step towards communism if the capital class was being subjugated in order to redistribute the wealth and if that wealth was not bc of super profits. Since the new deal didn't disempower capital the reforms were unwound. Since China has made capital sub to the prols in many ways it can make headway to communism and it continues to do so. How and what Russia has done is not something I have knowledge of but since the us has started a war with them I can make the reasonable assumption that Russia's wealth is not being made available to western oligarchs. Who is it being made available to? I don't know. But as i said before Tyson says that its going to the prols. If that is the case and if it is the case that the redistribution is because of capital subjugation then Russia is going commie. Another thing I think is interesting is that it seems like there is no large movement forcing the redistributive efforts ala the new deal. So I'll continue to keep and open mind towards rus

            • Tunnelvision [they/them]
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Russia's wealth is not being made available to western oligarchs.

              You are correct, the United States sanctioned Russia as well as the oligarchs. The west basically shot themselves in the foot because without the oligarchs Putin can do whatever within reason.

              Who is it being made available to?

              This is the part that we will not truly know until the war is over and in my opinion it is going to be the thing that there will inevitably be a struggle session about. It is the reason I brought up the comparison to the new deal because IMHO redistribution in this fashion is not what makes communism. Ive supported Russias position in the war for years now, but I don’t want to say they’re going commie until I see it with my own eyes and a post war new dealish economy, aint gonna cut it personally. Putin has been a straight shooter so far, which is nice when he’s combating western propaganda, but that also means we should probably take him at his word when he says he is the leader of a western inspired bougie economy. Could be wrong obviously, but I’m not holding my breath.

              Another thing I think is interesting is that it seems like there is no large movement forcing the redistributive efforts ala the new deal.

              This is true, but from what I understand Russia has made pretty good efforts in making the various minority communities feel included in the larger Russia society but also respecting their various cultures. America is just too sexist, racist, xenophobic etc to do that.

              • ikilledtheradiostar [comrade/them, love/loves]
                ·
                5 months ago

                America is just too sexist, racist, xenophobic etc to do that.

                Which are all products of capitalism so another interesting difference. Russia does seem horrible on the queer front tho. If it gets better that'll be a good indicator of its evolution

        • Tunnelvision [they/them]
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          If the United States decided today that it would bring back a new deal economy and millions of people were given well paying jobs and a comfortable standard of living, would you see that as a step towards communism? Obviously Russias wealth comes from its abundant resources, and I believe the average Russian today sees more of their labor in their pocket than before, but it’s still an economy based on the exploitation of its people. It is miles better than the US new deal economy because that economy was based on the exploitation of its people and also the imperial exploitation abroad, but it’s still on the same spectrum. I think Putin’s correct when he says they are similar to the west.